In its weekly orders last Friday (6/8/12), the Texas Supreme Court issued seven new opinions and granted review in four cases. The court also issued a slightly revised opinion in Safeshred, Inc. v. Martinez. Click here to read the order list.
The seven new opinions are:
1. Centocor, Inc. v. Hamilton -- This is a pharmaceutical products-liability case. The court applied the learned-intermediary doctrine, which protects a manufacturer when it adequately warns the patient's prescribing doctor. The patient had argued that the court should adopt an exception when there is direct-to-consumer advertising of the drug.
2. Heckman v. Williamson County -- The court held that misdemeanor defendants did have standing to bring a class action under section 1983 for an alleged denial of the right to appointed ccounsel.
3. AFH-Arbors at Huntsville I, LLC v. Walker County Appraisal District -- The court held that certain "community housing development organizations" could qualify for a property-tax exemption, even if they have only equitable ownership of the property.
4. Morris v. Aguilar -- The court held that an official court reporter's challenge to an affidavit of indigence was untimely under Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1.
5. Texas Dep't of Public Safety v. Kaspar -- This case involves a driver's license suspension. Applying its recent Caruana opinion, the court ruled that an unsworn breath-test report was admissible.
6. Office of the Attorney General v. Burton -- The court held that a no-evidence challenge in a bench trial can be raised for the first time on appeal, per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(d).
7. In re Lopez -- Where an arbitration hearing was held in a county other than the county specified in the contract, the court held that venue to challenge the award was proper in the county where the arbitration hearing was held.
Click here to access the opinions.
The four cases in which the court granted review are:
1. Lennar Corp. v. Markel American Ins. Co. -- This case involves liability-insurance coverage liafter the insured settled the underlying property-damage case. The insurer denied coverage, relying on the settlement-without-consent clause.
2. Dugger v. Arrendondo -- This case involves application of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 93.001, which creates an affirmative defense to an injury or death claim when the plaintiff was engaged in a felony at the time.
3. Rachel v. Reitz -- This case involves enforcement of an arbitration clause in a trust agreement.
4. In re Nalle Plastics Family LP -- The issue is whether attorney's fees are compensatory damages when determining the amount of a supersedeas bond.
-- Scott Stolley, Thompson & Knight
Comments